The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament

Oooh. The resurrection was an ancient Egyptian doctrine as was the Trinity. It was Egyptian Christianity that formulated these misunderstood
concepts.

It was indeed purely symbolic as your quote stated, but it was a literal action that happened in life, not after physical material death.

And matter nor the body were evil. That is a too common misconception that assumes much and is not rooted in understanding.

Plato was not evil to the best of my knowledge and teaching knowledge was, to the church, a perceived threat to order. Naturally the intellectual
were not welcome and the reason for this is they (priests) were intimidated and had a story that could be destroyed by scrutiny and instead of
teaching it as symbolic declared it reality by force of might. Retaining the OT was a fear based decision meaning that this Jehovah could be used to
scare people into submission before Jesus showed them mercy for submitting.

Catholicism is little more than a cover for Babylonian idolatry and an institution of secrecy and lies. Nothing they say can be trusted. Or the JW's
(Though good people can be Catholic or JW, it is the upper echelon that is responsible).

The Pope was at first like a high Priest, and then became the Vicar of Christ. God AND King. They caused the Dark Ages, the Crusades and the
Inquisition and allied secretly with Hitler. Pedophilia is an epidemic you would be foolish to believe recent, rare or a solved issue. It just went
further underground.

To conclude , the Trinity is not evil if you understand it and the resurrection only means you have symbolically died to the world and resurrected
spiritually. It is on the path to enlightenment. Faith, repentance, baptism (cleansed by water, enlightened by the Spirit and purified by fire) you
are born again, a virgin birth because you were not born of the womb but of the spirit. But you still must die, and be resurrected.

This is done by reclusion from the world while you perfect yourself as best you can and consult only wise counsel. Read, learn, pray, meditate, seek
and find. When you learn who YOU are you have learned knowledge of the ALL. (G.o.Thomas).

Care to share any historical evidence or details regarding that subject? That is to say, of the biblical resurrection of a dead person back to life.
The Egyptians' belief in an afterlife (i.e. you never die, the philosophy and
myth of an immortal soul) sort of excludes the possibility of a
resurrection as the resurrection is described in the bible.

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
..as was the Trinity. It was Egyptian Christianity that formulated these misunderstood concepts.

There were philosophies/ideas about Triune Gods (and Triads) in ancient Pagan religions as far back as when the Babylonian empire still existed, Plato
and his student Aristotle copied a lot of the religious philosophies from both Egyptian priests as Chaldean priests (Babylonians). What you refer to
as "Egyptian Christianity" (I must assume you are referring to something after Jesus Christ died) can't have been around yet.

The lack of unity of belief is apparent, however, as regional differences continued throughout Egyptian history and resulted in a maze of legends
and myths, often contradictory. The god Ra, for example, was known under 75 different names and forms. Only a few, relatively speaking, of the
hundreds of deities seem to have received worship on a truly national basis. Most popular among these was the trinity or triad of Osiris, Isis (his
wife), and Horus (his son).
...
There are numerous correspondencies between the principal gods of Egypt and those of Babylon, the evidence favoring Babylon as the source and Egypt as
the receiver or perpetuator.—See GODS AND GODDESSES.

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek
mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent
more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised
special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The
Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of
attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s]
conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris,
1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

What is the origin of Christendom’s belief in an immaterial, immortal soul?
...
“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of
religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of
life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

Genesis 3:4: At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX
Regarding the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is often taught now (for example the Athanasian Creed), that was a gradual process over
multiple centuries and multiple creeds. Most notably the Nicene Creed and the one I just mentioned (see last video of this comment for a different way
to phrase that).

“The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),”
says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History.

“The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same
substance . . . as the Father.’”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Contantinople is in modern-day Turkey and back then the Roman Empire, Nicea is also in modern-day Turkey, just south of Constantinople on the other
side of the sea. Those who were involved in these councils came from all over the Roman Empire, not just Egypt.

“The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible.”—The Athanasian Creed, describing the Trinity
taught by many churches of Christendom.

What the Bible teaches: Jesus said that those “taking in knowledge of . . . the only true God” would receive blessings. (John 17:3) But how
can we take in knowledge of God if he is a mystery? Far from concealing himself, he wants everyone to know him.—Jeremiah 31:34.

Of course, we will never know everything about God. This is to be expected because his thoughts and ways are higher than ours.—Ecclesiastes 3:11;
Isaiah 55:8, 9.

The videos below contain a lot of teachings from the books written by John that are all related to this subject we're discussing now as well the title
of this thread (compared to what is written in what the thread title refers to as "the Old Testament"). It's all very consistent:

You (or someone else in this thread) said something that relates to the video below:

I believe the guy below is an atheist or he's agnostic (but he's pretty accurate concerning the historical aspects surrounding this topic, not his
understanding of the words that have been translated to "god", "a god", "gods" and "God" in bible translations, for which I already linked a video in
many other threads on ATS):

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are
written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula
“one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons
existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and
the holy spirit.

Beware of Worldly Philosophy

How was Tertullian able to devise the theory of “one substance in three persons”? The answer lies in yet another paradox about the man—his view
of philosophy. Tertullian called philosophy “‘the doctrines’ of men and ‘of demons.’” He openly criticized the practice of using
philosophy to support Christian truths. “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition,”
he stated. Yet, Tertullian himself made liberal use of secular philosophy when it harmonized with his own ideas.—Colossians 2:8.

One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And
the book The Theology of Tertullian notes: “[It was] a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to
set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the
doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.” Hence, Tertullian’s formula—three persons in one divine substance—played a major role in the spreading of
religious error throughout all of Christendom.

Tertullian accused others of destroying the truth while they were trying to defend it. Ironically, however, by mixing divinely inspired Bible truth
and human philosophy, he fell into the same trap. Let us therefore take to heart the Scriptural warning against “paying attention to misleading
inspired utterances and teachings of demons.”—1 Timothy 4:1.

The Hellenistic period covers the period of ancient Greek (Hellenic) history between 323 BC and 31 BC. Tertullian (from Carthage, modern-day Tunisia)
lived from 160 AD - 220 AD.

originally posted by: Unity_99
You're free to cherry pick and choose your favorite scriptures and ignore others and define your christian belief, but there are thousands of
different interpretations, congregations and denominations.

The Arians did not believe or teach the Trinity, so I'm not sure what you mean by "Arian Trinity".

Your questions don't seem to relate to what I actually said. Nor does your comment help me very much with gaining understanding what you mean by
"Arian Trinity".

With "Arians" I am referring to those following the teachings of Arius (not everyone called an Arian by a Trinitarian, see wikiquote below). With "the
Trinity" I am referring to Trinitarian beliefs as taught by for example Tertullian and Athanasius. Trinity is short for Tri-unity, as in 3-in-1. Arianism - Wikipedia:

Arianism is a Christian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was created by God the Father at a point in time, is
distinct from the Father and is ... subordinate to the Father.

Not a Tri-unity, not 3-in-1 if Jesus is "distinct from the Father" and if he's "created by God", not a Trinity.

Arianism is also used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century,...

Which I'm not doing. When I say Arianism I mean Arianism, as in the teachings of Arius. Perhaps a better thing for me to do was to use the word
"Arianism" instead of "Arians" then in order to avoid that confusion. It has also been pretty common throughout history to refer to other
nontrinitarian groups as Arians, or as antitrinitarian (by Trinitarians):

Following the Protestant Reformation from 1517, it did not take long for Arian and other non-trinitarian views to resurface. ... The
antitrinitarian wing of the Polish Reformation ... were commonly referred to as "Arians" due to their rejection of the Trinity,...

a reply to: Akragon
If it's not a Tri-unity, it's not a Trinity, the correct way to phrase it would be that Arius did not teach a Trinity/Tri-unity (of any kind). A
slightly more cautious way to phrase that would be that I have seen no historical evidence that Arius taught a Trinity/Tri-Unity (of any kind,
regarding God, obviously, I'm not changing the subject). So I have no logical reason to believe that that was the case. No matter what people (usually
Trinitarians) say about him (especially those using the phrase "Arian Trinity" centuries later, I still need help in figuring out where that term
comes from and who used it first and what it exactly stands for, I think it's best suited for those using the term "Arian Trinity" to help me out with
that before I start a blank research project, get me started at least somewhere in history, I think the 2 words are an oxymoron when put together,
that is contradictory; and I have a bit of an issue with having to sift through all the websites with endless talk that show up if you google "Arian
Trinity" given what I know and quoted of Arianism and what's mentioned in my sig and profile description).

The 3rd google link is funny:

The Arian trinity was therefore not a trinity immanent and eternal, but ...

What Arius taught was not a trinity (meaning tri-unity) in any way. Why continue referring to what Arius taught as "The Arian Trinity" when it's not a
trinity in any way (what is described after "but" doesn't change that and is very misleading with that start)? Isn't that a little deceptive or
unnecessarily confusing?

Notice that the word "Trinity" also wasn't used in the statements that came from the council of Nicea (there was no official doctrine of the Trinity
and besides Tertullian using the word in his writings, it probably wasn't a word that was very popular among the bishops and their flocks in
describing God until later, a gradual progress of increasing popularity; see the video from ProfMTH, last video in one of my comments for details).
"Nontrinitarian" would therefore be more appropiate to describe Arianism rather than "antitrinitarian" which wikipedia appropiately does (by using the
word "other", also note where they use "antitrinitarian").

a reply to: Seede
That user has been banned, for the millionth time. In fact he's already appeared on this thread, and got banned again, in the account which followed
that one.
He is not a serious contender in theological debate.

a reply to: Seede
It might help if people stop using Hebrew words in English sentences without telling the reader what they mean (and possibly without realizing why
they behave that way, and in some rare cases I suspect knowing the purpose and doing it on purpose to keep people ignorant).

The word “Almighty” is translated from the Hebrew word Shad·daiʹ and the Greek word Pan·to·kraʹtor. Both words evidently convey
the idea of strength or power.
In the Hebrew text Shad·daiʹ is used seven times along with ʼEl (God), forming the title “God Almighty.” (Ge 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex
6:3; Eze 10:5) In the other 41 occurrences it stands alone and is translated “the Almighty” or “the Almighty One.”
...
Jehovah used the title “God Almighty” (ʼEl Shad·daiʹ) when making his promise to Abraham concerning the birth of Isaac, a promise
requiring that Abraham have great faith in God’s power to carry out that promise. It was thereafter used when God was spoken of as the one who would
bless Isaac and Jacob as heirs of the Abrahamic covenant.—Ge 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3.

Genesis 17:1 (ASV):

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be
thou perfect.

Darby Translation:

And Abram was ninety-nine years old, when Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said to him, I [am] the Almighty God: walk before my face, and be
perfect.

YLT:

And Abram is a son of ninety and nine years, and Jehovah appeareth unto Abram, and saith unto him, 'I am God Almighty, walk habitually before Me,
and be thou perfect;

NWT:

When Aʹbram was 99 years old, Jehovah appeared to Aʹbram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.* [*
= Or “blameless.”]

The bible is pretty clear who God Almighty is (and that it's a title, not a name).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Akragon
If it's not a Tri-unity, it's not a Trinity, the correct way to phrase it would be that Arius did not teach a Trinity/Tri-unity (of any kind). A
slightly more cautious way to phrase that would be that I have seen no historical evidence that Arius taught a Trinity/Tri-Unity (of any kind,
regarding God, obviously, I'm not changing the subject). So I have no logical reason to believe that that was the case. No matter what people (usually
Trinitarians) say about him (especially those using the phrase "Arian Trinity" centuries later, I still need help in figuring out where that term
comes from and who used it first and what it exactly stands for, I think it's best suited for those using the term "Arian Trinity" to help me out with
that before I start a blank research project, get me started at least somewhere in history, I think the 2 words are an oxymoron when put together,
that is contradictory; and I have a bit of an issue with having to sift through all the websites with endless talk that show up if you google "Arian
Trinity" given what I know and quoted of Arianism and what's mentioned in my sig and profile description).

The 3rd google link is funny:

The Arian trinity was therefore not a trinity immanent and eternal, but ...

What Arius taught was not a trinity (meaning tri-unity) in any way. Why continue referring to what Arius taught as "The Arian Trinity" when it's not a
trinity in any way (what is described after "but" doesn't change that and is very misleading with that start)? Isn't that a little deceptive or
unnecessarily confusing?

Notice that the word "Trinity" also wasn't used in the statements that came from the council of Nicea (there was no official doctrine of the Trinity
and besides Tertullian using the word in his writings, it probably wasn't a word that was very popular among the bishops and their flocks in
describing God until later, a gradual progress of increasing popularity; see the video from ProfMTH, last video in one of my comments for details).
"Nontrinitarian" would therefore be more appropiate to describe Arianism rather than "antitrinitarian" which wikipedia appropiately does (by using the
word "other", also note where they use "antitrinitarian").

You're totally right... i've been looking over documents for hours...

Arius didn't teach a trinity, even in his own words...

Officially retracted my last post...

i was so focused on Jesus not being equal when the "holy spirit" isn't even included in said equasion

then they would have to explain exactly why they reject Jesus as Messiah,

Actually they know why they reject Jesus...

He didn't fulfill the requirements of their messiah...

They had a false understanding of the Messiah. Jews in Christ's day believed there would be two Messiahs. The ruling King (Moshiyach Ben David) and
the Suffering Servant (Moshiyach Ben Joseph). They never perceived it was the same Messiah coming twice. The first time to save them from iniquity
and the second time to rule from David's throne.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.